On Thu, 2005-03-24 at 19:37 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 06:22:32PM -0700, dann frazier wrote: > > I'm trying to decide what I want to do about the ia64 kernel ABI. I > > rev'd it from -2 (currently in sarge) to -3 to turn off PREEMPT > > (prevents at least one user triggerable oops). This seemed convenient, > > since the k-s-2.6.8-14 had its own ABI change. > > > Well, turns out this was a bad idea - we've decided to revert the ABI > > change from the kernel-source, and the ia64 images are blocked from > > sarge because of it. > > > Is it feasible (or even a good idea) to revert this ABI change? The > > only problem I can come up with is that sid systems that installed the > > -2 ABI version and the -3 ABI version won't use -2 as a default kernel > > after the upgrade. That seems acceptable since after all, this is sid, > > and once we do the pending ABI roll, it will be -3 once again. And, I'd > > like for sarge users to be able to test new uploads. > > We want to keep any of these kernel updates from reaching testing before > sarge release, unless there's agreement that we should do a full update > (including revision of the d-i kernel udebs). Kernels also aren't affected > by the autobuilder problems with t-p-u right now, so that option is open for > anything that does need to be uploaded for sarge. I'd say there's no reason > not to play with longshot-for-sarge kernel changes in unstable.
Just to clarify - what is meant by 'these kernel updates'? All kernels? All ia64 kernels? All ABI changes? -- dann frazier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
